Pena v. Deprisco
432 F.3d 98 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State officials may be liable under a state-created danger theory for implicitly communicating to a private actor that they may engage in dangerous misconduct with impunity, but officials are entitled to qualified immunity if that specific application of the law was not clearly established at the time of their conduct.
Facts:
- New York City police officer Joseph Grey had a known history of drinking problems which he disclosed to the NYPD upon his application in 1984.
- During his service, it was common practice for officers, both on and off-duty, to drink alcohol at or near the precinct, with the full knowledge of Grey's supervisors.
- On August 4, 2001, after finishing his shift, Grey began a twelve-hour drinking binge, starting in the precinct parking lot with fellow officers and at least one supervisor, Sergeant Healy.
- During the binge, Sergeant Healy asked the intoxicated Grey to drive him to and from a local bar, where they and other officers continued to drink.
- Later, Grey entered the precinct building while visibly intoxicated, but no on-duty officers or sergeants intervened to prevent him from getting back in his car and driving away.
- After nearly twelve hours of continuous drinking and not having slept for over twenty-two hours, Grey sped through multiple red lights and struck and killed Maria Herrera, her son Andy Herrera, and her sister Dicia Pena. Maria Herrera was eight-and-a-half months pregnant; her baby was delivered by C-section but died shortly after birth.
Procedural Posture:
- The surviving relatives and administrators of the victims' estates filed suit against individual police officers, the City of New York, and others in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- Plaintiffs' complaints asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the decedents' substantive due process right to be free from a state-created danger.
- The individual officer defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing they were entitled to qualified immunity.
- The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs had stated a viable constitutional claim and that the right was clearly established.
- The individual defendants associated with the 'pre-accident' conduct filed an interlocutory appeal of the district court's denial of qualified immunity to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are police officers entitled to qualified immunity from a § 1983 state-created danger claim where they implicitly condoned and participated in a fellow officer's chronic and egregious drunk driving, which ultimately led to the deaths of several pedestrians?
Opinions:
Majority - Sack, Circuit Judge.
Yes. While the plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to state a constitutional violation under the state-created danger doctrine, the individual officers are entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established at the time of their conduct. The court first determines that a constitutional violation occurred. Unlike the general rule in DeShaney that the state has no duty to protect individuals from private violence, this case falls under the state-created danger exception articulated in Dwares. The court extends Dwares to hold that an 'affirmative act' of encouragement can be implicit; a long-standing pattern of condoning and participating in dangerous conduct can effectively communicate a 'prior assurance' of impunity. This behavior, showing deliberate indifference to a widely known and extreme danger, is egregious enough to 'shock the contemporary conscience.' However, the court then finds that the second prong of qualified immunity is not met. At the time of the incident, Dwares had only established liability for explicit, prearranged official sanction of private violence. No precedent had clearly established that implicit encouragement through long-term participation and inaction could create a substantive due process violation. Therefore, a reasonable officer would not have had 'fair notice' that this specific conduct was unconstitutional, and the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.
Analysis:
This decision significantly develops the 'state-created danger' doctrine within the Second Circuit by establishing that implicit, ongoing condonation of dangerous private conduct by state actors can constitute an affirmative act sufficient to state a substantive due process claim. By granting qualified immunity, however, the court draws a line between recognizing a new constitutional violation and holding past actors liable for it. The ruling serves as a powerful notice to law enforcement agencies that tolerating a 'culture' of dangerous off-duty behavior, such as drunk driving, can create constitutional liability for future incidents, likely influencing policies on supervision and internal discipline.
